Twice today the Kentucky Court of Appeals issued opinions which strongly affirm the public's rights under the open records law.

Why is this especially significant?

It is because cases issued by our state appellate courts — construing the open records law — were, in the past, few and far between.

The glut of open government cases reaching the appellate court today is a reflection of the dismissive attitude toward Kentucky's Open Government laws adopted by public agencies, including state universities, in recent years.

In Kentucky Kernel v University of Kentucky, the Court of Appeals reversed the Fayette Circuit Court's opinion that the university properly denied the student newspaper's March 2016 request for records relating to the university's investigation into complaints of sexual assault leveled by female students against a tenured professor.

Relying on five separate exceptions, UK refused to disclose responsive records to The Kernel, and later refused to honor the attorney general's statutorily authorized request to confidentially inspect redacted copies of the disputed records in order to review the university's denial when The Kernel appealed to the attorney general's office.

The court began with the simple declaration that UK "failed to follow the Open Records Act by not fulfilling its statutory mandates under the Act."

Rejecting the suggestion that the newspaper's interest was prompted by "simple curiosity," the court recognized that "the public has an interest in the investigatory method used by its public agencies and to know that a publicly funded university has complied with all state and federal laws."

The court later noted that "the university has not made any attempt to comply with the Open Records Act in any meaningful way," giving clear direction to agencies on what meaningful compliance requires in the form of particularized indexes correlating records withheld with the exceptions relied upon.

It harshly criticized the university for taking "the indefensible position that the records are exempt because it says they are and it must be believed."

The court reversed the circuit court's opinion and remanded the case to the circuit court for review consistent with this holding and for consideration of an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties.

Shortly after The Kernel appealed to the circuit court, the attorney general intervened in the case to obtain a ruling on his staff's right to confidentially review disputed records in discharging the duties statutorily assigned to that staff.

The court characterized the university's refusal to cooperate with the attorney general as "problematic," declaring that "the General Assembly intended for the attorney general to save the court and the requester time and costs by designating the attorney general as the 'watchdog' in open records cases."

The court decline to grant the attorney general the injunctive relief he sought, but found the university's position otherwise indefensible.

Since the "problem" emerged in this case, the number of instances in which public agencies have refused the attorney general's request to conduct confidential inspection of disputed records in open records appeals has dramatically increased.

Public agencies are now on notice that the courts will not tolerate their refusal to cooperate with the attorney general's staff in discharging the duties assigned to them by law.

It is likely that the University of Kentucky will petition the Kentucky Supreme Court for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' opinion. The Court may or may not grant the university's petition.

In the meantime, even more delays and even more attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties will be incurred — all at the literal and figurative expense of the public's right to know.

For now, we should savor the victory.